I agree with the statement that in the future in which automated vehicles will be used more widely, people will compromise with handing over their data in exchange for being able to enjoy the benefits of being taken around in personalized assistant wheels. First and foremost, in as much as the automated vehicles are more efficient, they face challenges such as AVs are expensive to purchase. As much as the technology used in making these vehicles is advanced, it may not consider being cheap as it advances. These automated vehicles may be very efficient but affordable to only a few individuals. The few remaining will not embrace such, and as a result, it will be critiqued. The technology used in making these automated vehicles can potentially go wrong. For example, the car might be designed so that it should cause the least harm in case of failure. But when it comes to human life or in animal life, no loss is a minor loss. The vehicle might save the life of four people at the expense of one. This will face critics because, despite the technology used in cars, they cannot be 100 percent accurate and cannot avoid all harm. Automated vehicles will also offer the potential for more significant pollution. Most of the motorized vehicles will be using fuels that will emit poisonous and hazardous pollutants to the environment. Imagine parking your car, which is automatic outside a hotel as you catch up with friends. The emissions from an automated vehicle would be worse than leaving the car idling as you do your thing. Other shortcomings of the motorized vehicle might be losing privacy as a third party would have to monitor another person’s movements. These shortcomings will put off people from embracing automated cars.
I agree with all the statements made so far. It is undoubtedly Elizabeth’s fault, and she should have listened to the experts that she first hired then fired. Although everyone signed a document not to talk about insider knowledge about Theranos, in my opinion, it is also the fault of the employees, especially the ones that got fired anyways, not to go public about these issues. In court, it is a breach of the signed documents to go public with information that finally reveals a crime. Since we are talking about a health product that may affect many lives, investigators should investigate the functionality. Also, third parties with no interest should test the product. I would not say it to her life goals if she went public, it would have slowed it down. Eventually, there was a chance of success since maybe the public critics would have enabled room for product improvement. First, firing experts who may have an idea of what was going on in Theranos and bringing others messed the company. I would have advised bettering the current experts and empowering them with skills to improve and meant the areas that went wrong in the company. Allowing the company info to get to the public would have messed its reputation but would have been a blessing in disguise on the other hand. The people would have maybe provided a solution to the company in their critiques. The company here (Theranos) handled issues that directly touched the lives of people. This is something that Elizbeth should not have taken for granted at any point. In my opinion, she should have invested dramatically in hiring qualified staff and not threatening to fire the current ones and replace them with less qualified staff.